Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

chromestatus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 171 posts

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#61

Post by noduerme »

ignoramous wrote: post #48
modeless wrote: post #10

I think a lot of people don't realize it's possible to use UDP in browsers today with WebRTC DataChannel. I have a demo of multiplayer Quake III using peer-to-peer UDP here: https://thelongestyard.link/ Direct sockets will have their uses for compatibility with existing applications, but it's possible to do almost any kind of networking you want on the web if you control both sides of the connection.

> Direct sockets will have their uses for compatibility with existing applications... In fact runtimes like Node, Deno, Cloudflare Workers, Fastly Compute, Bun et al run JS on servers, and will benefit from standardization of such features. [WICG] aims to provide a space for JavaScript runtimes to collaborate on API interoperability. We focus on documenting and improving interoperability of web platform APIs across r…

Can you explain further... how does this improve upon websockets and socketIO for node?

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#62

Post by synctext »

ignoramous wrote: post #48
modeless wrote: post #10

I think a lot of people don't realize it's possible to use UDP in browsers today with WebRTC DataChannel. I have a demo of multiplayer Quake III using peer-to-peer UDP here: https://thelongestyard.link/ Direct sockets will have their uses for compatibility with existing applications, but it's possible to do almost any kind of networking you want on the web if you control both sides of the connection.

> Direct sockets will have their uses for compatibility with existing applications... In fact runtimes like Node, Deno, Cloudflare Workers, Fastly Compute, Bun et al run JS on servers, and will benefit from standardization of such features. [WICG] aims to provide a space for JavaScript runtimes to collaborate on API interoperability. We focus on documenting and improving interoperability of web platform APIs across r…

This slowly alters the essence of The Internet, due to the permissionless nature of running any self-organising system like Bittorrent and Bitcoin. This is NOT in Android, just isolated Web Apps at desktops at this stage[0]. The "direct socket access" creep moves forward again. First, IoT without any security standards. Now Web Apps.

With direct socket access to TCP/UDP you can build anything! You loose the constraint of JS servers, costly WebRTC server hosting, and lack of listen sockets feature in WebRTC DataChannel.

NAT puncturing is already solved in our lab, even for mobile 4G/5G. This might bring back the cyberpunk dreams of Peer2Peer... In our lab we bought 40+ SIM cards for the big EU 4G/5G networks and got the carrier-grade NAT puncturing working[1]. Demo blends 4G/5G puncturing, TikTok-style streaming, and Bittorrent content backend. Reading the docs, these "isolated" Web Apps can even do SMTP STARTTLS, IMAP STARTTLS and POP STLS. wow!

[0] https://github.com/WICG/direct-sockets/blob/main/docs/explai... [1] https://repository.tudelft.nl/record/uuid:cf27f6d4-ca0b-4e20...

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#63

Post by derefr »

crote wrote: post #38
chocolatkey wrote: post #3

When reading https://github.com/WICG/direct-sockets/blob/main/docs%2Fexpl... , it's noted this is part of the "isolated web apps" proposal: https://github.com/WICG/isolated-web-apps/blob/main/README.m... , which is important context because the obvious reaction to this is the security nightmare

That doesn't really make it any better, if you ask me. The entire Isolated Web Apps proposal is a massive breakdown of the well-established boundaries provided by browsers. Every user understands two things about the internet: 1) check the URL before entering any sensitive data, and 2) don't run random stuff you download. The latter is heavily enforced by both Chrome and Windows complaining quite a bit if you're tryi…

Does it help to think of it less as Chrome allowing websites to do XYZ, and more as a PWA API for offering to install full-fat browser-wrapper OS apps (like the Electron kind) — where these apps just so happen to “borrow” the runtime of the browser they were installed with, rather than shipping with (and thus having to update) their own?

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#64

Post by rad_gruchalski »

crote wrote: post #38
chocolatkey wrote: post #3

When reading https://github.com/WICG/direct-sockets/blob/main/docs%2Fexpl... , it's noted this is part of the "isolated web apps" proposal: https://github.com/WICG/isolated-web-apps/blob/main/README.m... , which is important context because the obvious reaction to this is the security nightmare

That doesn't really make it any better, if you ask me. The entire Isolated Web Apps proposal is a massive breakdown of the well-established boundaries provided by browsers. Every user understands two things about the internet: 1) check the URL before entering any sensitive data, and 2) don't run random stuff you download. The latter is heavily enforced by both Chrome and Windows complaining quite a bit if you're tryi…

The last time I used Chrome was about 3 years ago. You have a choice.

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#66

Post by bpfrh »

modeless wrote: post #10

I think a lot of people don't realize it's possible to use UDP in browsers today with WebRTC DataChannel. I have a demo of multiplayer Quake III using peer-to-peer UDP here: https://thelongestyard.link/ Direct sockets will have their uses for compatibility with existing applications, but it's possible to do almost any kind of networking you want on the web if you control both sides of the connection.

You can also use WebTransport with streams for tcp and datagramms for udp https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebTranspor...

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#67

Post by arlort »

noduerme wrote: post #61
ignoramous wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Direct sockets will have their uses for compatibility with existing applications... In fact runtimes like Node, Deno, Cloudflare Workers, Fastly Compute, Bun et al run JS on servers, and will benefit from standardization of such features. [WICG] aims to provide a space for JavaScript runtimes to collaborate on API interoperability. We focus on documenting and improving interoperability of web platform APIs across r…

Can you explain further... how does this improve upon websockets and socketIO for node?

Without a middleman you can only use web socket to connect to an http server.

So, for instance if I want to connect to an mqtt server from a webpage I have to use a server that supports websocket endpoint. With direct sockets I could connect to any server using any protocol

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#68

Post by jeroenhd »

tjoff wrote: post #60

Great, so now a mis-click and your browser will have a field day infecting your printer, coffee machine and all the other crap that was previously shielded by NAT and/or a firewall.

As long as they don't change the spec, this will only be available to special locally installed apps in enterprise ChromeOS environments. I don't think their latest weird app format is going to make it to other browsers, so this will remain one of those weird Chrome only APIs that nobody uses.

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#69

Post by melchizedek6809 »

bloomingkales wrote: post #13

Can a browser run a web server with this?

Since it allows for accepting incoming TCP connections, this should allow for HTTP servers to run within the browser, although running directly on port 80/443 might not be supported everywhere (can't see it mentioned in the spec, but from what I remember on most *nix systems only root can listen on ports below 1024, though I might be mistaken since it's been a while)

Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131

#70

Post by troupo »

Status of specification: "It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track."

Status in Chrome: shipping in 131

Expect people claiming this is a vital standard that Apple is not implementing because they don't want web apps to compete with App Store. Also expect sites like https://whatpwacando.today/ uncritically just include this

Post reply on HN